Following are two articles from the Grand Rapids Press and Muskegon Chronicle that ran on Sunday, August 5. The first article also ran in the Grand Rapids Press. Thanks to Governor Milliken, Joan Wolfe, and Professor Sax for speaking out on the Michigan Supreme Court's ruling on MCWC v Nestle. Please write a letter to the editor correcting Shellenbarger and Carlesso's misinformation.
Following are tips and talking points for letters responding to the recent articles.
Send letters to the Press
- Email pulse@grpress.com no attachments
- By fax 616.222.5212
- By mail The Grand Rapids Press, 155 Michigan St. NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
- Send letters to the Chronicle
- Include your full name, address, and a daytime phone number where they may reach you
- Keep the letter short
- Refer directlly to the Grand Rapids Press August 5 article "Milliken: Water ruling 'major setback' "or "Plant quenches Stanwood's thirst" or to the Muskegon Chronicle's August 5 article "Supreme Court water ruling 'major setback,' Milliken says"
- Points to make:
- Bill Rustem is quoted as saying the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) "doesn't matter" to Nestle. That is not true. Nestle initiated the cross appeal that attached the standing of citizens and constitutionality of the MEPA. MCWC raised only the water law issues on appeal to prevent an interpretation that would allow export of water out of the Great Lakes
- The lawsuit filed by an environmental group is Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation a grassroots group of over 1,900 members. In the two articles MCWC is referred to as "environmental group" or "environmentalists". The group does have a name that should appear in all articles
- Does one 15 year old Stanwood resident who is opposed to Nestle's Ice Mountain represent all who are opposed to Ice Mountain when those who have no problem with Ice Mt. include a business man, the county clerk, director of MI Works West Central region, spokeswoman for Nestle, and city manager of Evart. To my knowledge, members of MCWC nor any of the board of MCWC were contacted to express their views on Nestle's Ice Mt.
- Jenna N. Carlesso, author of "Plant quenches Stanwood's thirst" gives the impression that the court ruled against the "environmentalists". That is wrong. The lower courts found Nestle's pumping causes major harm to a lake, stream, and adjacent wetlands and imposed limits on Nestle's pumping. The Supreme Court let stand MCWC's victorties on the harm and limits on Nestle's pumping.
- MEPA is not dead. Citizens have the right to sue for harm to the environment or natural resources, lakes, streams, public lands, parks, air, and other water resources that they use and enjoy, as members of the public or as property owners.
- Justice Cliff Taylor is up for re-election in 2008 and is one of the four-justice majority that did the damage to MEPA and has done damage to other rights of citizens and persons to bring lawsuits.
* Supreme Court water ruling 'major setback,' Milliken says
Muskegon Chronicle
By Pat Shellenbarger
That's why Michigan's Environmental Protection Act -- initiated by
a group of Grand Rapids environmentalists, written by a University of
Michigan law professor, overwhelmingly passed by the Michigan
Legislature and signed by Milliken 37 years ago -- included that
word, giving anyone the right to sue over damage to the state's
water, air or land, he said.
http://www.mlive.com/news/chronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-12/118641156951800.xml&coll=8
* Ice Mountain plant quenches Stanwood's thirst
Grand Rapids Press
By Jenna N. Carlesso
There is no sign this Ice Mountain water bottling plant is at the
center of a controversial state Supreme Court decision and a
long-running battle with environmentalists.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-37/1186296893278530.xml&coll=6